Basic Human Rights

[Sculptor]

You owe all your freedoms to socialism.

I'll just forward that to my friends in Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea. They just don'e seem to understand how free socialism has made them.

I talking about people in the West, not these travesties. I mean YOU and me.
Were it not for socialism we still be under the yoke of aristocracy, with no vote, and no working rights.

But since you mention Venezuela and Cuba, they are poor because of US sanctions, not for any failure of socialism. As for the peasants in those countries, despite, the economic sanctions and trade block from the US, literacy rates are higher than in the US in Cuba, and have risen dramatically in recent years in Venezuela.

[Sculptor]

Liberalism is the basis of socialism...

No, it's not. Classical Liberalism affirms the rights of the individual above and against the demands of others. Socialism denies rights to the individual, and accords all primarily rights to the Collective. That's why Socialism has been, in every real-world case in history, totalitarian and dictatorial. It's highly illiberal, actually.

Stupid and ignorant - you are not doing very well today.
There is noting is socialism that mandates totalitarianism or dictatorship.

[Immanuel Can]

There is noting is socialism that mandates totalitarianism or dictatorship.

No, Socialism doesn't "mandate" dictatorship: it just inevitably results in it. Socialism destroys the liberal claims of the individual, over and against the State. And the State is run by the totalitarians.

In every case, the adoption of Socialism has handed control to the dictatorship that follows. Cuba got Castro. Venezuela got Maduro. Russian and China got Stalin and Mao. Cambodia got Pol Pot, and Zimbabwe got Mugabe...on and on it goes. It's always, always the same result.

Somebody has defined insanity as "Trying the same thing over and over, hoping to get a different result." In that case, pulling for Socialism today is as good an example of insanity as you can get.

[henry quirk]

You owe all your freedoms to socialism.

I'll just forward that to my friends in Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea. They just don'e seem to understand how free socialism has made them.

I talking about people in the West, not these travesties. I mean YOU and me.
Were it not for socialism we still be under the yoke of aristocracy, with no vote, and no working rights.

*But since you mention Venezuela and Cuba, they are poor because of US sanctions, not for any failure of socialism. As for the peasants in those countries, despite, the economic sanctions and trade block from the US, literacy rates are higher than in the US in Cuba, and have risen dramatically in recent years.

*See?

[Lacewing]

Many humans share the views of many humans, all throughout history. What difference does that make, really?

It makes a difference cuz some things are true and some are false.

You had said that a bunch of people agree with your views. I responded above. And now you seem to be suggesting that the difference is that your views are truth, whereas others (I referred to) may not be? Okay. Riveting argument, Henry.

One of the main questions that comes up in philosophy is "What do we know?" And many people will claim different answers to that. It's one of my favorite questions, along with WHY people claim to know.

Good questions: so, Lace, how and why do you know what you know?

Here's the best way I can think to explain it for myself right now. There seem to be different kinds of "knowing"... where it comes from, how it feels, and how it's used. People can say they know something, but they may not; maybe they confuse "knowing" with thinking or wanting. For every viewpoint, there's an opposite viewpoint, and everyone thinks they're right. So who really knows?

I don't think we humans know as much as we think we do. It's hard for me to put into words how it works for me, because I know it sounds airy fairy to those who are guided by their egos (which are actually a convoluted mess!). It appears that I am guided and seemingly informed by impressions that come to me, which I perceive as a natural current (across a vast natural network) that anyone can tap into. Sometimes these impressions stand-alone... while typically it seems suitable to combine them with my experience, awareness, and/or personality. The results of how it has worked in my life have been astounding... and everyone who witnesses that, has been blown away (it doesn't feel like a major credit to me -- but rather an example of what's possible!) I've found it important to stay flowing and be open to changing course. That appears to reduce the human noise and the know-it-all ego that obscures broader potential.

I do not obsess over "knowing" rigid answers: such ideas appear made-up by humans to serve ourselves. I use "supposed answers" for maneuvering in the world, without being overly convinced by them. There are times when an impression comes to me which gives me a sense of knowing what to do or what's going to happen... and it's always true, I don't even hesitate anymore. It's a completely different sense than the way we humans impose what we think for manifesting our world. I PLAY a lot with manifesting... but I stay open for the impressions... so my experience is of those working together without rigid rules or stories.

Do you, Henry, think that humans accurately know all the makings of this world? When so many see from countless different perspectives, that they all claim are right?

Seems to me: the intuitive sense of ownness is universal. Every man has it.

It seems to me: Very young children don't have it when they're born. They are part of a system. Their egos haven't grown. So if that's a natural state for humans, it seems that the ego does not necessarily have to take over the driver's seat. Many people have endeavored to set the ego and idea of separate "ownness" aside. It may seem foreign to you, but it is possible. And if you weren't hell-bent on insisting that we all belong to ourselves, you might relax enough to see some other possibilities and viewpoints.

Can we believe any of it?

If it involves anyone telling you they have a better handle on your living than you, and they should have authority over you, no.

Agreed. And that refers to religion, government, and any other person or group who thinks they "know" such things.

If it involves the compromise, the accommodation, meetin' in the middle, no.

I'm able to be flexible and "play the game" to meet at a better place when possible. If that's pointless, I avoid it and work around it. It wouldn't be smart to be against such qualities (you list above) in all areas of life. Even if you think you know everything, rigidity doesn't change anything. All it does is feed the ego built on the rigidity, and manifests more nonsense stories to support itself.

Everybody being hard-nosed maintains the status-quo and glorifies small-thinking.

So, you evidently give humans much more credit than I do.

I do. As I say elewhere: the long haul movement of man, cultures, politics, etc. is away from the slaver king and toward a wholesale recognition, respect for, and defense of, individual liberty.

I was referring to your seeming notion that humans are smart enough to develop intricate long-term slave programs. I think humans are more focused on immediate profit.

Seems to me institutionalizing certain systems, like governance, is a sure sign of long term planning.

Sure, to attempt to maintain a certain amount of control for a political party... but I don't think it's masterminded to create slaves.

Henry, it simply doesn't make sense to separate ourselves from the systems we are part of.

In some things this is true. I live in Earth, a -- from my perspective -- vast cluster of interlocking systems. In a sense, I'm a part of this cluster, but I'm autonomous within it. I'm a part that gets to, as I say, bend, end, and begin causal chains. I'm not, as you might say, a product or event, but an agent. I'm a person, not a thing.

Do you think you can't be both, a product and an agent? Aren't you a product of your environment, your time in history, and all the influences upon you every day? Do you think you're separate and unaffected by such things?

[Lacewing]

You can be a free agent -- even free from yourself -- moment to moment

I don't see how. If you're irresponsible, that's you choosin' to be irresponsible. No one gets to cast off their self-direction or self-responsibility.

That's not what I'm saying. You ignored my other statements/questions which put it into context. Why does there need to be "an owner"? Do you think someone/something can't function without an "owner" or without being "owned"? That seems to go against your usual position... except that you are granting yourself ownership. I don't think it's necessary (or even helpful, perhaps) to view it that way.

One's identity and concepts of ownership can be a prison.

As I say, folks can self-hoodwink as sure as they can be hoodwinked by others. If you believe your identity (by which I mean who you are, and not the silly social construct nonsense that pollutes the so much of the day-to-day) is lacking, surely you self-hobble.

Seems reasonable to suggest that identity is an illusion.

[Sculptor]

There is noting is socialism that mandates totalitarianism or dictatorship.

No, Socialism doesn't "mandate" dictatorship: it just inevitably results in it.

No you are still wrong.

[Immanuel Can]

There is noting is socialism that mandates totalitarianism or dictatorship.

No, Socialism doesn't "mandate" dictatorship: it just inevitably results in it.

No you are still wrong.

Give me one case -- just one -- where a polity converted its economic and political machinery to Socialist, and that did not happen. I've given you a half dozen counter cases, and could have given you twice as many more, if I'd chosen to.

So you must have one. Just one.

[henry quirk]

Do you, Henry, think that humans accurately know all the makings of this world?

No. But we know some of it. Reason and intuition are great tools: they've taken us, as a species and as individuals, far. Seems to me: the road ahead is wide open, with no end in sight.


It seems to me: Very young children don't have it when they're born.

From elsewhere...

He doesn't reason it, doesn't work out the particulars of it in advance. He never wakens to it, never discovers it. It's not an opinion he arrives at or adopts. His self-possession, his ownness, is essential to what and who he is; it's concrete, non-negotiable, and consistent across all circumstances.

It's real, like the beating of his heart.

the toddler indeed, as he goes about discoverin' what his limits are, where the world begins and he ends, instinctually knows he is his own...it's the very basis for his fearless exploration...to him everything, all of it, is his...it's through exploration and experience that he comes to understand the world is not his

what he never arrives at -- except when taught otherwise -- is the conclusion that he is not his own (and even in the teaching -- indoctrination, really -- the road is long and hard for the teacher...as I say, you have to wear a man, or boy, down to a nub, make him crazy through abuse and deprivation to get him to willingly accept the yoke, to accept he is not his own)


Sure, to attempt to maintain a certain amount of control for a political party... but I don't think it's masterminded to create slaves.

And yet governance, of any strain, always results in the leash.


Do you think you can't be both, a product and an agent?

No. It's simply impossible for a person to be a product.

[Lacewing]

I make decisions for myself, but I don't think in the terms of owning myself.

But then, you do. For the disposition of yourself and your resources are at your own discretion.

And here's you telling me how it is for me when I've said otherwise. Fuck off.

Are you able to look around at all we are part of, and consider how that immense system naturally operates and interacts on so many levels, independent of hierarchical stories about gods or man over all else?

Loaded question. You're essentially asking me, "Are you able to agree with me, or are you unable to see?" Hilarious.

Don't YOU ask questions that aim to see if someone can see your perspective, even if they don't seem inclined to?

Transparent, yes...but still hilarious.

As usual, you are resistant to acknowledging whether any part of a question is something you see or agree with. You just scream "TRAP!" (which it's not), and run away.

No, I cannot answer a question that is loaded to be answered only two ways, both of which are also untrue. But the fault is not mine.

There are not only two ways. There may be parts you agree with, and parts you don't. But you don't even try, and you never answer anything that you limit with such thinking. And "the fault is never yours". Your self-ownership should be fired!

[henry quirk]

Why does there need to be "an owner"?

As I reckon it: to be a person one must belong to one's self...it's no different than fire, by definition, bein' hot...there is no cold fire; there is no man who doesn't belong to himself.


Seems reasonable to suggest that identity is an illusion.

It's madness to suggest identity is an illusion. Such thinkin' leads to absurdities like Bruce Jenner refashionin' himself into a woman. He's not a woman, he's a disturbed man who self-mutilated in service to a delusion. Identity is who you are. It's not a garment to be cast off, or a mask to be switched out.

Absolutely, time and experience tweak a person, but there's never a wholesale, 180 degree, shift in who a person is...it's simply not possible.

[henry quirk]

You ignored my other statements/questions which put it into context.

Actually, I'm just tryin' to keep my end of the conversation on track. In doin' so, I lost some of your context.

My apologies.

[henry quirk]

Do you think you're separate and unaffected by such things?

I like the expression in the world, but not of the world: as a causal agent (a free will) I'm subjected to all manner of influences, large & small, subtle & gross, but these are -- bottomline -- only influences...none determine me.

[Immanuel Can]

I make decisions for myself, but I don't think in the terms of owning myself.

But then, you do. For the disposition of yourself and your resources are at your own discretion.

And here's you telling me how it is for me when I've said otherwise.

No, I'm just telling you how you have said it is. If you make your own decisions, then no matter how you think of it, nobody owns you but you.

Don't YOU ask questions that aim to see if someone can see your perspective, even if they don't seem inclined to?

All the time. But when I do, I try not to load the question with a problematic premise.

[henry quirk]

if you weren't hell-bent on insisting that we all belong to ourselves, you might relax enough to see some other possibilities and viewpoints.

Not much point in explorin' possibilities and viewpoints that fly in the face of what is as obvious and real as the big crooked nose hangin' off my lop-sided face.

If fire, as I say, by definition, is hot, then it seems kinda dumb to go off in search of cold fire, yeah?

Dumb, a waste of time, more than a little loopy.